and that is why Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth. States passed (illegal immigration) laws that he doesn't like, DOJ goes after them. Yet the laws were passed by elected representatives of the people.
It is pretty condensending for our President to come out with his statement before the decision on health care.
You know that's pretty easily flipped around, right?
Hey, did y'all hear Obama's latest comment?
"We liberals stand for causes that are too important to allow unelected judges to force their own biases on an unwilling nation."
What do you think about that?!
Now what do you think when I tell you that it was actually Mitt Romney who said it -- except of course using "conservatives" in place of "liberals"?
It would make me tear up and get all blubbery inside. :2razz:
Hey, did y'all hear Obama's latest comment?
"We liberals stand for causes that are too important to allow unelected judges to force their own biases on an unwilling nation."
What do you think about that?
It was not unelected judges who were responsible for trying to force this mess on an unwilling nation.
It's always possible to not strike down a law, but unconstitutional laws should be struck down.The purpose is to highlight the fact that we have a representative democracy where laws should not be overturned by the courts if at all possible.
It's always possible to not strike down a law, but unconstitutional laws should be struck down.
Certainly. But this one isn't unconstitutional.
It would send tingles down my legs.
Certainly. But this one isn't unconstitutional.
On what basis you believe the individual mandate is constitutional?
Pretty basic. Congress has virtually unlimited power to regulate interstate commerce. Health insurance is interstate commerce. Q.E.D....
Didn't Chris Mathews get a tingle or 'something down his leg' when he heard President Obama speak. :mrgreen:
He's addicted to tingle... can't get to sleep without it. His sleep literally depends upon Obama staying President ... :lamo
The supreme court was never intended or granted powers to strike down laws made by ELECTED officials. Conservatives always want to rant and rave about our founding fathers and the powers they intended for our gov't yet when there are clear deviations from those intended powers that benefit them, they always make excuses for it. It wasn't until under Marshall, the Court established the principle of judicial review, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution.
The supreme court is only intended to be the highest court of law in cases that involve state and federal law. It was never intended to warp and manipulate and ultimately decide what the constitution means.
The supreme court was never intended or granted powers to strike down laws made by ELECTED officials. Conservatives always want to rant and rave about our founding fathers and the powers they intended for our gov't yet when there are clear deviations from those intended powers that benefit them, they always make excuses for it. It wasn't until under Marshall, the Court established the principle of judicial review, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution.
The supreme court is only intended to be the highest court of law in cases that involve state and federal law. It was never intended to warp and manipulate and ultimately decide what the constitution means.
NARAL is going to hate that thought
I guess the schools can be resegregated, too. OnWisconsin says so.
The supreme court was never intended or granted powers to strike down laws made by ELECTED officials. Conservatives always want to rant and rave about our founding fathers and the powers they intended for our gov't yet when there are clear deviations from those intended powers that benefit them, they always make excuses for it. It wasn't until under Marshall, the Court established the principle of judicial review, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution.
The supreme court is only intended to be the highest court of law in cases that involve state and federal law. It was never intended to warp and manipulate and ultimately decide what the constitution means.
The supreme court was never intended or granted powers to strike down laws made by ELECTED officials. Conservatives always want to rant and rave about our founding fathers and the powers they intended for our gov't yet when there are clear deviations from those intended powers that benefit them, they always make excuses for it. It wasn't until under Marshall, the Court established the principle of judicial review, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution.
The supreme court is only intended to be the highest court of law in cases that involve state and federal law. It was never intended to warp and manipulate and ultimately decide what the constitution means.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?